|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
22 Mar 2007 : Column 1066Wcontinued
Once recorded, a crime would remain recorded unless there was additional verifiable information to disprove that a crime had occurred.
The Counting Rules also include specific instructions that relate to the recording of crime in connection with goods ordered over the internet which are as follows:
Location of crime: Goods ordered over the internet:
If goods ordered over the internet (or by phone, mail etc.) do not arrive due to a fraudulent operation, then the following rules apply in order of priority:
If the location of the suspect(s) is either unknown or outside England and Wales, then the crime should be recorded in the force/BCD in whose area the victim is located when they place the order.
If the location of the suspect(s) becomes known and is within England and Wales, then record in the force/BCU area covering that location.
If payment is made electronically then the venue will be the address of the account holder into which the money is transferred or if no address then the address of the bank, provided this is not at headquarters or the site of a computer server.
With regard to the number of investigations, prosecutions and outcomes of frauds directly relating to the internet, this information is not available centrally.
Stephen Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Somali nationals have been returned to Somalia from the UK over the last two years, broken down by (a) those who voluntarily returned to Somalia and (b) those who were forcibly removed to Somalia; 
(2) what estimate he has made of the number of Somali nationals in the UK who do not have leave to remain. 
Mr. Byrne: No estimate has been made regarding the number of Somali nationals in the UK who have no leave to remain. As the Home Secretary set out in his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 23 May 2006, no Government have been able to produce an accurate figure for the number of people who are in the country illegally, and that remains the case.
The following table shows the number of Somali nationals removed from the UK in 2004 and 2005, broken down by type of applicant and type of removal.
The information provided comes from published statistics. Information on removals in 2006 will be published in the summer on the Home Office's research development and statistics website at:
|Removals, voluntary departures and assisted returns( 1, 2) of Somalia to Somalia, 2004-05( 3, 4)|
|Number of persons|
Persons leaving under assisted voluntary return programmes(8)
|(1 )Includes enforced removals, persons departing voluntarily after enforcement action had been initiated against them, persons leaving under assisted voluntary return programmes run by the International Organization for Migration and in 2005 those who it is established have left the UK without informing authorities.|
(2) Includes cases dealt with at juxtaposed controls.
(3 )Figures rounded to the nearest five, with = 0, * = 1 or 2, and may not sum due to rounding.
(4 )Provisional figures.
(5 )Persons who had sought asylum at some stage, excluding dependants.
(6) Includes persons departing voluntarily after enforcement action had been initiated against them and in 2005 those who it is established have left the UK without informing the immigration authorities.
(7) Excludes assisted voluntary returns.
(8 )Persons leaving under assisted voluntary return programmes run by the International Organization for Migration. May include some cases where enforcement action has been initiated.
(9) Persons leaving under the assisted voluntary return for irregular migrants programme run by the International Organisation for Migration. May include some on-entry cases and some cases where enforcement action has been initiated. Removals under this scheme began in December 2004.
Mr. David Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration officers are stationed permanently at the port of Holyhead. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 7 March 2007]: All ferry services to Holyhead are from within the Common Travel Area. Controls are operated on an intelligence-led basis.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many days between 10 December
2006 and 10 January 2007 the male immigration detention estate in London was unable to admit new entrants; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: I am advised that during the period from 10 December 2006 to 10 January 2007, admission has been possible within the London male immigration detention estate. Harmondsworth, Colnbrook and Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centres).
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Adjournment debate of 12 March 2007, Official Report, columns 131-4, on passport interview centres, what consultations he has undertaken with stakeholders from (a) Somerset and (b) Taunton in deciding the location of remote interview facilities for passport application interviews. 
Joan Ryan: Consultation on the proposed location of passport remote interview facilities in sparsely populated parts of the UK, as defined by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), was undertaken with local and regional bodies in those areas. Somerset is not defined as a sparsely populated area in this context.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Adjournment debate of 12 March 2007, Official Report, columns 131-4, on passport interview centres, when the interview centres in (a) Barnstaple, (b) Bristol, (c) Exeter and (d) Yeovil will be fully operational; and for how many days per week each will be open. 
Joan Ryan: The requirement to attend an interview will be introduced gradually, starting with interviews in a limited number of interview offices in the next few months, with further offices being added progressively through to the end of 2007.
The number of days per week each interview office will open are:
|Interview centre||Number of days|
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken by the police force in (a) Suffolk, (b) Bedfordshire, (c) Cambridgeshire, (d) Essex, (e) Hertfordshire and (f) Norfolk was to respond to inquiries from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) as part of routine CRB checks in each year since 1997. 
The following table illustrates the average number of days taken by the police forces in (a) Suffolk, (b) Bedfordshire (c) Cambridgeshire, (d)
Essex, (e) Hertfordshire and (f) Norfolk to conduct checks against their local intelligence systems between the launch of the CRB disclosure service on 11 March 2002 and the end of February 2007.
|Average turnaround times|
A revised service level agreement (SLA) came into effect in April 2006 between the CRB and the 43 police forces of England and Wales. This new agreement, which was agreed by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) places an additional focus on delivery and the responsibility of Chief Officers and ACPO to ensure that the obligations within the SLA are met. Monthly performance figures since April 2006 are now published on the CRB website at:
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were attacked while replenishing cash machines in 2007; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: These statistics are not collected centrally.
The Government recognise the seriousness of Cash and Valuables in Transit (CVIT) robbery and the impact these attacks have on both victims and witnesses. We are therefore working with stakeholders to establish a Government and cross-industry response to the problem.
Mr. Gauke: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the circumstances were of the release from prison of Mr. Sherhan Yildrim. 
Mr. Byrne: I am not able to comment on individual cases within the House.
Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his most recent estimate is of the (a) one-off cost and (b) recurring costs of implementing the (i) Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 and (ii) Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 to (A) businesses and (B) the regulators. 
Mrs. McGuire: The information is as follows.
(i) The total costs of implementing the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 in the first year were estimated to be between £117.0 million and £202.6 million. Costs were estimated, in present value terms, to be between £477.6 million and £676.3 million over the first 10 years. Costs were estimated to be £1.13 billion to £1.94 billion over 40 years, in present value terms(1).
The additional costs to health and safety regulators were not considered to be substantial. There were pre-existing regulations, implemented in 1989, and ensuring compliance with the new requirements would be subsumed into current inspection activities.
(ii) The first year costs of implementing the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 were estimated to be between £201 million and £358 million. Over the first 10 years, total costs were estimated, in present value terms, to be between £2,377 million and £4,300 million.
The initial costs to regulators were estimated to be around £65,000 for training inspectors (mainly HSE) and around £300,000 for conducting research into whole-body vibration exposures to assist industry by producing generic risk assessments for machines expected to cause higher exposures(2).
Enforcing the regulations is unlikely to increase costs because enforcement action will be absorbed as part of the full range of inspection duties carried out by inspectors.
The information in this reply was drawn from the final regulatory impact assessment for the legislation that is available in the Library or on the HSE website at
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|